Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satish Prakash Singhal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 November, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 MP 1896
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
WP 521/2015 (S)
Satish Prakash Singhal vs. State of MP
Gwalior, dtd. 20/11/2019
Shri Rajnish Sharma, Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pawan Singh Raghuvanshi, Government Advocate for the
respondents/ State.
This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 10/11/2014 (Annexure P1) passed by respondent No.3, by which the benefit of Second Krammonati to the petitioner has been denied on the ground that in case if it is granted, then it would result in reduction of salary of the petitioner. (2) The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that on 10/11/1966, the petitioner was appointed on the post Sanitary Inspector and thereafter, by order dated 2 nd March, 1982, he was promoted to the post of Health Officer and thereafter, he has retired from service on 31/10/2002.
(3) It is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that the State Government has introduced a scheme of Krammonati and issued instructions in that regard and according to the said Scheme, every employee was entitled to get at least two higher pay scales during his service period. According to the scheme, the employee, who had worked on one post for a period of 12 years or more than 12 years was entitled to get the benefit of first Krammonati and after completion of 24 years of service, then he was entitled to get second Krammonati. 2 The respondents' Department has also accepted the Scheme and issued instructions by passing an order dated 25/04/2000. (4) It is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1966 and was promoted in the year 1982. After completion of 12 years of service, he was entitled for first Krammonati but as the petitioner was already promoted in the year 1982, therefore, first Krammonati was not granted. However, after completion of further period of 12 years from the date of promotion, the petitioner was entitled to get the benefit of Second Krammonati. The respondents did not grant the benefit of 2 nd Krammonati. Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition No.333 of 2003(S) and the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 01/12/2006 with the observations that the claim of the petitioner with regard to grant of time bound promotion cannot be adjudicated because the petitioner has already been retired from service and he has got the promotion also on the post of Health Officer in March, 1982. The said writ petition was disposed of with following directions:-
''The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of Fifth Pay Commission and arrears to the petitioner, if the same has been granted to other employees. His pay and pension be revised accordingly.
The respondent/ Municipal Council is free to deduct the amount of electricity which is payable to the petitioner after verifying the facts that when the quarter was allotted to the petitioner and up to the period, when the petitioner occupied the aforesaid quarter actually. With regard to other benefits, the Municipal Council may pass a speaking order.'' (5) It is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that this Court 3 had directed the respondents to decide the question of other benefits by passing a speaking order and, therefore, the petitioner moved a representation before the authorities and the said representation was kept pending and accordingly, he filed a Writ Appeal No.13/2007 and the said Writ Appeal was disposed of by order dated 05/07/2012 with following observations:-
''After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, during the course of arguments, the contentions so advanced, it is apparent that the relief as allowed in the writ petition has already been satisfied. It is only the issue with respect to grant of Kramonnati which is required to be determined. Considering the provisions so contained under Section 86 (3) of the Municipalities Act, it would be desirable to issue appropriate direction to the State Govt. to examine the case of the petitioner in the matter of grant of Kramonnati in the light of the existing rules and circulars and thereafter, the State Govt. shall pass an appropriate reasoned order within a period of 3 months. It is made clear that the benefit of Kramonnati to the employees of the State Municipal service is payable by the State Govt. it be released as per the rules, otherwise after affording an opportunity, appropriate order be passed. It is further made clear that if the benefit of Kramonnati is payable by the Municipal Council, necessary directions in this regard be issued to the Councils so that they may examine the case of the petitioner and take decision in this regard. In the light of the order passed today, the petitioner shall submit a representation within two weeks which would be dealt with, in view of foregoing directions.
With the aforesaid observation, this writ appeal stands disposed of.'' (6) Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a fresh representation before the respondents in compliance of the order dated 05/07/2017 passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No.13/2007 and the said representation was kept pending. Thereafter, he filed a Contempt Petition, which was registered as Contempt Petition No.92/2013 and accordingly, the respondents appeared in the Contempt Petition and submitted that they 4 want to pass a final order and accordingly, the Contempt Petition was finally disposed of. Thereafter, in spite of several opportunities given to decide the representation, the respondents did not decide the said representations in compliance of order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.333/2003(S) and again contempt petition was filed and during the pendency of said contempt petition, the impugned order dated 10/11/2014 was passed on the ground that in case, if second Krammonati is granted, then it would result in reduction of salary of the petitioner, therefore, his claim was rejected. (7) Challenging the order dated 10/11/2014 passed by respondent No.3, it is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that the Urban Administration & Development Department, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal has issued a scheme for grant of Krammonati.
(8) It is submitted that according to the said circular, the respondents while deciding the question of entitlement of the employees for grant of second Krammonati should have considered the pay scale of the petitioner which he was getting at the time of consideration and the respondents were not right in considering the original pay scale of the petitioner at the time of appointment, otherwise the basic purpose of Krammonati would get frustrated because in all cases, if the original pay scale of the employee is made applicable, then none of the employee would get the benefit of second Krammonati after putting 24 years in service because in every case, it would result in reduction of salary.
(9) Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the State that the 5 respondents did not commit any mistake by rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that in case, if second Krammonati is granted on the basis of original pay scale of the petitioner at the time of his appointment, then it would result in reduction of his salary. (10) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
(11) The Circular dated 19th April, 1999 issued by GAD reads as under:-
...........''2- jkT; 'kklu dh lsok esa fu;qDr ,sls leLr deZpkjh tks lacaf/kr lsok Hkjrh fu;eksa ds varxZr fu;fer :i ls fu;qfDr fd;s x, gkas rFkk mlds i'pkr~ ,d gh osrueku ¼rRLFkkuh osrueku lfgr½ esa 12 o"kZ vFkok mlls vf/kd ds vof/k ls fujarj dk;Zjr gks] rks mUgsa fuEu 'krksZa ds v/khu] lyXu lwph esa n'kkZ;s x, vuqlkj mPp osrueku esa dzeksUufr fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼d½ ;fn mDr 'kkldh; dehZ dh fu;qfDr lsok esa fu;qDr i'pkr dh lsok vof/k 12 o"kZ ls vf/kd ijUrq 24 o"kZ ls de gS rFkk mls lsok esa Hkjrh ds le; ykxw izkjafHkd osrueku vFkok mlds rRLFkkuh; osrueku ds vfrfjDr dksbZ vU; osrueku inksUufr@dzeksUufr@p;u@vixzsM djds vFkok vU; fdlh ek/;e ls izkIr ugha gqvk gSA ¼[k½ ;fn mDr 'kkldh; dehZ dh fu;fer lsok esa fu;qfDr ds i'pkr~ dh lsok vof/k 24 o"kZ ls vf/kd gS] rFkk mls lsok esa izos'k ds le; ykxw osrueku ds vfrfjDr ,d ls vf/kd mPprj osrueku inksUufr@dzeksUufr@p;u@vixzsM'ku vFkok vU; fdlh ek/;e ls u feyk gksA ¼x½bl ;kstuk ds varxZr dzeksUufr dk ykHk iznku djus ds fy, mDr deZpkjh@vf/kdkjh ds foxr 5 o"kZ ds xksiuh; izfrosnuksa dk ifj{k.k mlh izdkj fd;k tk,xk ftl izdkj ls inksUufr ds izdj.kksa esa fd;k tkrk gS] rFkk mi;qDr ik;s tkus ij gh dzeksUufr dk ykHk fn;k tk,xkA ¼?k½dzeksUur gksus ij osru dk fu/kkZj.k dzeksUUkfr osrueku esa vxyh LVst ij fu/kkZfjr fd;k tkosxkA ^^ ijUrq ;fn Hkfo"; esa ;fn blh osrueku esa inksUufr dh tkrh gS rks mlds mijkUr osru fu/kkZj.k ,slk ekurs gq, fd;k tkosxk tSls dh laacaf/kr deZpkjh iwoZ ds osrueku esa gh pyk vk jgk gks rFkk mls dzeksUufr ds QyLo:i osru fu/kkZj.k dk ykHk ugha feyk gks^^ ¼p½bl dzeksUufr ds QyLo:i lacf/kr vf/kdkjh@deZpkjh ds inuke esa fdlh izdkj dk ifjorZu ugha fd;k tk,xkA ...................'' (12) It is clear from Clause 2(b) of the Circular that promotion/ Krammonati/ Selection/Up-gradation have been placed in one category.
Therefore, promotion has to be treated as '' Krammonati''. In the present 6 case, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Health Officer in the year 1982. Therefore, in the light of Clause 2(b) of the circular, it can be safely said that promotion of the petitioner in the year 1982 would amount to grant of First Krammonati and after completion of 12 years after his promotion or after completion of 24 years of his service, he was entitled for second Krammonati. Even otherwise, the respondents have not denied that the petitioner is not entitled for second Krammonati. Only question for consideration is that whether Second Krammonati should be calculated on the basis of pay scale which was granted to the petitioner at the time of appointment or second Krammonati has to be considered on the basis of pay scale which the petitioner was getting at the time when he became entitled for second Krammonati.
(13) It is well-established principle of law that any interpretation of statue which leads to absurdity should be avoided. If the second Krammonati is calculated on the basis of original pay scale, then in all cases, none of the employee would get the benefit of second Krammonati because after putting 24 long years of service, the calculation of second Krammonati on the basis of original pay scale would certainly lead to reduction of salary and the basic purpose of Krammonati is to meet out a situation of stagnation because of inability of the employer to provide avenue for promotion to its employees. Therefore, it is held that while considering the question of second Krammonati, the respondents were not right in considering the original pay scale of the petitioner.
7
(14) Under these circumstances, the order dated 10/11/2014 (Annexure P1) is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Let the entire exercise be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(15) This petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge MKB Digitally signed by MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK Date: 2019.11.25 17:47:34 +05'30'